Wednesday, August 31, 2011

The federal debt limit negotiations that preoccupied Washington for most of July did not result in immediate tax legislation. However, the general debate did succeed in helping to jumpstart a serious discussion over taxes that now has the momentum to continue. Tax increases, rate hikes, rate reductions and general tax reform are now all on the table.

Whether significant tax legislation will be recommended and passed at year-end 2011 as the result of an immediate directive to start trimming the deficit is but one possible outcome of the continuing debt-limit debates. Another increasingly persuasive catalyst for tax legislation will result from the many Congressional hearings on tax reform now being held on Capitol Hill. Those hearings are using as springboards initial proposals that have been introduced recently by the White House Deficit Commission Report, the Republican Study Committee, and the so-called Gang of Six, a bi-partisan group of Senators suggesting ways to cut trillions from the deficit over the next 10 years. Finally, the need for Congress to act on the Bush-era tax cuts set to expire after December 31, 2012, will all but force Congress to deal with tax reform in an era in which careful budgeting is essential to economic growth.

Administration's Proposals

At the center of President Obama's long-range plan to trim the deficit is an extension of the Bush-era tax cuts for lower and middle income taxpayers after 2012, but not for some higher income taxpayers now in the top two rate brackets. Under the president's plan, taxes would increase for higher income individuals (which the White House defines as individuals with incomes above $200,000 and families with incomes above $250,000). The White House has also called for the elimination of certain oil and gas tax preferences, a permanent research tax credit and an extension of the 2011 payroll tax cut.

Gang of Six Tax Proposals

In early 2011, six members of the Senate (the Gang of Six) began negotiations on a comprehensive deficit reduction plan. On July 19, 2011, the senators released a bipartisan blueprint to reduce the budget deficit by $3.7 trillion over 10 years through a combination of spending cuts and revenue raisers.

Individual tax rates. The Gang of Six would replace the current individual marginal income tax rate schedule with three new tax brackets, ranging from: 8-12 percent; 14-22 percent; and 23-29 percent. The alternative minimum tax (AMT) would be repealed as well.

Tax expenditures. In return for lower tax rates and no AMT, the Gang of Six would reduce a yet unspecified number of "tax expenditures," aka deductions and credits. Possible tax expenditures up for reform, but not repeal, could include the home mortgage interest deduction, the deduction for charitable contributions and the deduction for certain medical expenses.

Corporate tax. The Gang of Six would establish a single, lower corporate tax rate of somewhere between 23 percent and 29 percent while promising to raise as much revenue as under the current corporate tax system by eliminating many yet-to-be specified business deductions, credits and other preferences. The Gang of Six would also move to a territorial tax system under which profits would be taxed only by the country where the income is earned.

House Republican Study Committee

The Republican Study Committee (RSC) is made up of 175 conservative members of the House. The RSC drafted the deficit reduction proposal which passed the House on July 19, 2011 as the Cut, Cap and Balance Act. The Cut, Cap and Balance Act, ultimately rejected by the Senate, did not include any tax increases.

Tax reform. The RSC has called for a "smarter" Tax Code that would lower rates while broadening the tax base. The RSC to date has not offered any further specifics on how it would lower rates and broaden the tax base. The RSC has previously indicated its opposition to any scaling back of the Bush-era tax cuts.

White House Deficit Commission

The bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform issued its final report, "The Moment of Truth," in December 2010. The Commission developed a six-part plan designed to reduce the federal deficit by almost $4 trillion by 2020. The 18-member commission approved the report by a vote of 11-7, with Democrats and Republicans on both sides of the vote.

Tax reform. Tax reform as envisioned by the Deficit Commission would achieve at least 20 percent of the $4 trillion reduction. The Deficit Commission plan aims to reduce, if not eliminate, $1.1 trillion in tax expenditures in the current Tax Code for individuals and businesses. Under current law, the largest tax expenditure is the tax-free treatment of contributions to health care plans at approximately $144 billion per year.

Other substantial tax expenditures include:

$79 billion by disallowing portions of the home mortgage interest deduction,
$57 billion by curtailing accelerated depreciation,
$53 billion by raising capital gains rates, and
$49 billion by tightening the availability of the earned income credit.
At the same time, the plan would reduce tax rates, the amount depending on the amount of tax expenditures eliminated.

Individual income tax rates. Under one scenario, the Deficit Commission's plan would provide three ordinary income tax rates as low as 8, 14, and 23 percent. The plan would treat capital gains and dividends as ordinary income, but, of course, ordinary income rates would be lower. The plan would eliminate the alternative minimum tax (AMT).

More "reforms." Other targeted reforms proposed by the Deficit Commission include:

Limiting the charitable deduction for individuals to amounts over two percent of adjusted gross income;
Repealing the state and local tax deduction for individuals;
Repealing all miscellaneous itemized deductions for individuals;
Capping the income tax exclusion for employer-provided health insurance; and
Raising the federal gasoline tax by 15 cents per gallon.
Corporate tax. The Deficit Commission plan would provide a single corporate tax rate of 26 percent, compared to the current maximum rate of 35 percent. Additional business-related reforms include eliminating the Code Sec. 199 domestic manufacturing deduction, the LIFO (last-in, first-out) method of accounting, and oil and gas production incentives.

TAX WRITING COMMITTEES

In tandem with deficit reduction proposals, the tax writing committees in Congress are exploring possible reforms to the Tax Code. The Senate Finance Committee, controlled by Democrats, and the House Ways and Means Committee, controlled by Republicans, have looked at a variety of issues related to individual and business taxation.

The Senate Finance Committee (SFC), under the leadership of Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., has held a series of hearings in recent months on tax reform. The SFC has examined, among other issues, oil and gas tax preferences, the tax treatment of business and household debt, strategies to increase the voluntary compliance rate to 90 percent, and efforts to close the tax gap.

The House Ways and Means Committee has also held a series of hearings on tax reform in recent months. The Ways and Means Committee has examined, among other issues, the advantages and disadvantages of a value added tax (VAT), tax incentives to encourage foreign investment in the U.S., and the corporate tax rate.

Please contact Doeren Mayhew if you have any questions over how momentum toward deficit reduction and tax reform may impact your bottom line tax liability in the future.

If and only to the extent that this publication contains contributions from tax professionals who are subject to the rules of professional conduct set forth in Circular 230, as promulgated by the United States Department of the Treasury, the publisher, on behalf of those contributors, hereby states that any U.S. federal tax advice that is contained in such contributions was not intended or written to be used by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer by the Internal Revenue Service, and it cannot be used by any taxpayer for such purpose.

The IRS has announced that it will discontinue the high-low method used by taxpayers in a trade or business to substantiate travel expenses incurred while away from home. The method, developed by the IRS, applies to travel expenses for meals, lodging and incidental expenses. It not only has provided a short-cut method for employers to cover the paperwork required to substantiate business travel deductions but in the past it has also helped the IRS streamline certain audits.

Background

Under the high-low method, the IRS provides optional per diem allowances that employers and employees are deemed to have substantiated. The method can be used in lieu of substantiating actual travel-related expenses. The per diem amounts also satisfy the requirement that employees provide the employer with an adequate accounting of meal and lodging expenses.

The IRS publishes a list of localities classified as high-cost areas under the high-low method. All other localities in the continental United States (CONUS) are classified as low-cost areas. The maximum per diem rate for high-cost areas is $233 for travel on or after October 1, 2010. This represents $168 for lodging and $65 for meals and incidental expenses (M&IE). The per diem rate for low-cost areas on or after October 1, 2010, is $160, which represents $108 for lodging and $52 for M&IE.

Waning interest

The IRS requested comments in 2010 on whether to continue the method and received no comments. The IRS interpreted such lack of interest as the deciding reason to discontinue the method. It also reportedly has found the collection of data, as well as the politics that went into designating an area as "high cost," growing more difficult when compared to the value of continuing the method in an environment in which digitized travel receipts are now so easily available. Taxpayers currently using the high-low method, however, can anticipate continuing to use it through 2011.

More guidance to come

Later in 2011, the IRS promises to issue a new revenue procedure, without the high-low method, that will provide general rules and procedures for substantiating lodging, meals and incidental expenses incurred in business travel away from home. It is unlikely that the IRS will issue high-low rates for 2012.

Government employers use the per diem method widely, practitioners report. Private industry, however, generally prefers to reimburse employees based on actual receipts and, therefore, only a small percentage of private businesses will expected to miss using the high-low method to substantiate travel expenses. Contact Doeren Mayhew for more information.

If and only to the extent that this publication contains contributions from tax professionals who are subject to the rules of professional conduct set forth in Circular 230, as promulgated by the United States Department of the Treasury, the publisher, on behalf of those contributors, hereby states that any U.S. federal tax advice that is contained in such contributions was not intended or written to be used by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer by the Internal Revenue Service, and it cannot be used by any taxpayer for such purpose.

Wednesday, August 17, 2011

A transaction may comply with a literal reading of the Tax Code but result in unreasonable tax consequences that are not intended by the tax laws. To combat these transactions, the IRS has used for many years a doctrine known as the economic substance doctrine. Congress codified the doctrine in 2010 and recently the IRS issued instructions to examiners explaining how to apply the codified doctrine.

Economic substance

In recent years, the IRS has successfully used the economic substance doctrine to fight abusive tax shelters. These cases involved, among other things, corporate owned life insurance, limited liability companies, and other entities. According to the IRS, these entities and the transactions they entered into were designed solely for tax avoidance purposes and lacked economic substance. The IRS scored some significant victories using the economic substance doctrine against tax shelters.

Codification

The economic substance doctrine was developed by the courts over the past 70 years. Because it was judicially created, courts applied the doctrine in different ways. There was no national standard in applying the doctrine. In some cases, the differences among the courts of appeal were subtle; in other cases, they their interpretations of the doctrine varied widely.

Codification was promoted as a way to standardize application of the doctrine. Congress codified the economic substance doctrine in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act (HCERA). The codified doctrine applies to transactions entered into on or after March 30, 2010 (the date of enactment of HCERA).

Congress codified the economic substance doctrine as follows: In the case of any transaction to which the economic substance doctrine is relevant, the transaction shall be treated as having economic substance only if the transaction changes in a meaningful way (apart from federal income tax effects) the taxpayer's economic position; and the taxpayer has a substantial purpose (apart from federal income tax effects) for entering into such transaction."

Congress also approved tough penalties. There is a strict liability penalty of 20 percent (40 percent for undisclosed transactions) of any underpayment attributable to the disallowance of claimed tax benefits by reason of the application of the economic substance doctrine or failing to meet the requirements of any similar rule of law.

Application

Almost immediately after HCERA became law, taxpayers asked the IRS how it intends to enforce the codified economic substance doctrine. The IRS issued a notice (Notice 2010-62) and a directive for its examiners (LMSB-20-0910-024) in September 2010. The IRS followed up that initial guidance with a new directive on July 15, 2011.

The IRS explained that latest directive lays out a step-by-step inquiry examiners should make to determine if it is appropriate to apply the economic substance doctrine. The IRS also reiterated that any decision to apply the doctrine must be approved by senior agency personnel.

First, an examiner should evaluate whether the circumstances in the case are those under which application of the economic substance doctrine to a transaction is likely not appropriate. Second, an examiner should evaluate whether the circumstances in the case are those under which application of the doctrine to the transaction may be appropriate. Third, if an examiner determines that the application of the doctrine may be appropriate, the guidance provides a series of inquiries an examiner must make before seeking approval to apply the doctrine. Fourth, if an examiner and his or her manager and territory manager determine that application of the economic substance doctrine is merited, guidance is provided on how to request senior manager approval.

The directive also advised examiners that the enhanced penalties under HCERA are limited to the application of the economic substance doctrine. Until more guidance is issued, the IRS will not impose these enhanced penalties due to the application of any "similar rule of law" as authorized by HCERA.

Measured approach

Looking ahead, it appears the IRS intends to take a measured approach in applying the codified economic substance doctrine. Senior IRS officials have indicated that the agency will be careful in applying the codified doctrine. Of course, guidance in this area is very limited at this time. Our office will keep you posted of developments. If you have any questions about the economic substance doctrine, please contact Doeren Mayhew.

If you work with or within a construction company, MACPA’s annual Construction Industry Conference is your blueprint to success! Explore the specialized issues facing these organizations, from economic and tax updates to working with unions. As an added value, you can customize this conference with breakout sessions from the Controllership and Automotive Dealers Conferences being held at the same venue.

In recent years, Congress has used the Tax Code to encourage individuals to make energy-efficient improvements to their homes. The credit is very popular. The Treasury Department estimates that more than 6.8 million individuals claimed over $5.8 billion in residential energy tax credits in 2009.

Under current law, the Code Sec. 25 tax credit provides a 10 percent credit for the purchase of qualified energy efficiency improvements to existing homes. A qualified energy efficiency improvement is any energy efficiency building envelope component:

Meeting or exceeding criteria for the component established by the 2009 International Energy Conservation Code or, in the case of certain windows, skylights and doors, and metal roofs, meeting Energy Star requirements;
Installed in or on a dwelling located in the United States and owned and used by the taxpayer as the taxpayer's principal residence;
Original use of which commences with the taxpayer; and
The qualified energy-efficient improvement reasonably can be expected to remain in use for at least five years.
Examples of energy-efficient improvements include, but are not limited to, qualified electric heat pumps, certain furnaces, metal roofs meeting certain criteria, certain types of exterior windows and doors. In some cases, only the cost of the energy-efficient improvement is eligible for the Code Sec. 25C tax credit; installation costs are ineligible. For example, the costs associated with installing a qualified electric heat pump are eligible for the Code Sec. 25C tax credit but costs associated with installing a qualified metal roof are ineligible.

Lifetime limits

The 2010 Tax Relief Act set the maximum Code Sec. 25C credit allowable is $500 over the lifetime of the taxpayer. The $500 amount must be reduced by the aggregate amount of previously allowed credits the taxpayer received in 2006, 2007, 2009, and 2010. This provision can complicate planning for the Code Sec. 25C credit because Congress made changes to the credit before and after 2009, particularly regarding the lifetime limit.

Let's look at an example. Amanda qualified for a $400 Code Sec. 25C tax credit in 2006. The maximum credit allowable is $500 over her lifetime. This means that Amanda can get an additional Code Sec. 25C tax credit of up to $100 in 2011.

Under the 2010 Tax Relief Act, no more than $200 of the Code Sec. 25C credit may be attributable to expenditures on exterior windows and skylights. Taxpayers must reduce the $200 amount by the aggregate amount of previously allowed credits for windows and skylights that the taxpayer received in 2006, 2007, 2009, and 2010.

Dollar limits

Additionally, certain dollar limitations apply to various improvements. For property placed in service in 2011, the dollar limits are $300 for any item of qualified energy-efficient property; $50 for an advanced main air circulating fan; and $150 for any qualified natural gas, propane or oil furnace or hot water boiler.

Energy standards

Moreover, the qualified energy-efficient property must meet standards set by the by the 2009 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC). The 2010 Tax Relief Act treats exterior windows, skylights and exterior doors are qualified energy efficiency improvements if they meet the Energy Star Program requirements in 2011.

Certification statements

Many energy-efficient improvements come with a manufacturer's certification statement. The statement indicates if the improvement qualifies for the tax credit. It is not necessary to submit a copy of the manufacturer's certification statement with the individual's tax return, but taxpayers should keep a copy of the certification statement for their records.

Another credit

The Code Sec. 25D tax credit also is intended to reward taxpayers for making certain energy-efficient improvements. The Code Sec. 25C tax credit covers items such as geothermal heat pumps, solar water heaters, solar panels, and small wind energy systems. Many of the rules for the Code Sec. 25D tax credit are similar to the Code Sec. 25C tax credit but there are some differences. For example, the Code Sec. 25D credit has no lifetime limit. If you are considering making one of these improvements, please contact our office for more details about this tax credit.

Form 5695

Taxpayers claim the Code Sec. 25C tax credit on Form 5695, Residential Energy Credits. The IRS has identified some abuses of the Code Sec. 25C tax credit and it intends to make revisions to Form 5695 to curb fraudulent claims and verify eligibility for the credit. These changes are expected to appear on the Form 5695 that taxpayers will file in 2012.

If you have any questions about the Code Sec. 25C tax credit, please contact our office.

If and only to the extent that this publication contains contributions from tax professionals who are subject to the rules of professional conduct set forth in Circular 230, as promulgated by the United States Department of the Treasury, the publisher, on behalf of those contributors, hereby states that any U.S. federal tax advice that is contained in such contributions was not intended or written to be used by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer by the Internal Revenue Service, and it cannot be used by any taxpayer for such purpose.

Wednesday, August 3, 2011

FAQ: When will the IRS withdrawal a tax lien under its Fresh Start program?

Early in 2011, the IRS announced a series of measures to help taxpayers buffeted by the economic slowdown. The IRS calls these measures its "Fresh Start" program and they are intended help taxpayers who want to pay their tax liabilities but because of unemployment, slow business sales or for other legitimate reasons, cannot pay their tax debts. One of the most attractive features of the Fresh Start program involves the withdrawal of a tax lien.

Liens

When the IRS files a notice of federal tax lien (NFTL) it makes a claim to a taxpayer's property as security or payment for a tax debt. The IRS must follow very detailed procedures, including sending the taxpayer a notice and demand for payment. If the taxpayer pays the tax debt, the IRS must release the lien within a prescribed period of time; generally within 30 days after the taxpayer satisfies the tax due, including interest and other additions.

There is an important distinction between release of a lien and withdrawal of a lien. Although the IRS may release the lien, the lien generally continues to be reflected on the taxpayer's credit report unless the lien is withdrawn. This can negatively affect a taxpayer's ability to get credit or, in some cases, could have a negative impact on the taxpayer obtaining a job if the employer reviews the taxpayer's credit history.

Full payment

Under the "Fresh Start" program, the IRS has announced that liens will be withdrawn immediately once full payment is made by the taxpayer. The IRS has instructed taxpayers, whose lien has been released after full payment, to request withdrawal of the lien in writing. Taxpayers use Form 12277, Application for Withdrawal, to make this request.

Direct Debit installment agreement

The IRS will also withdraw a lien if the taxpayer agrees to enter into a Direct Debit installment agreement. In this arrangement, the taxpayer consents to having funds automatically debited from a bank account for the agreed upon installment amount. The IRS prefers Direct Debit installment agreements because they are automatic: the taxpayer does not need to remember to send a check or money order.

Not everyone is eligible for lien withdrawal after entering into a Direct Debit installment agreement. The IRS has explained on its web site that qualifying taxpayers are individuals; active businesses with income tax liability only (this would exclude active businesses with unpaid employment taxes); and defunct businesses with any type of tax debt. The current amount owed by the taxpayer must be $25,000 or less. The IRS has advised on its web site that taxpayers owing more than $25,000 may pay down the balance to $25,000 prior to requesting the lien withdrawal to be eligible for the relief. Additionally, the taxpayer's Direct Debit installment agreement must pay in full the amount owed within 60 months or before the collection statute expires, whichever is earlier. The taxpayer also must have made three consecutive Direct Debit Payments before the IRS will withdrawal the lien.

Taxpayers should use Form 12277 to request withdrawal of a lien after entering into a Direct Debit installment agreement. The IRS warned it will file a new NFTL if the taxpayer subsequently defaults on its Direct Debit installment agreement.

Lien filing thresholds

The IRS has also adjusted the lien filing threshold under the Fresh Start program. The Fresh Start changes increase the IRS lien filing threshold from $5,000 to $10,000. However, the IRS has reserved the right to file liens on n amounts less than $10,000 when circumstances warrant.

If you have any questions about withdrawing a lien under the IRS "Fresh Start" program, please contact Doeren Mayhew.

As an individual or business, it is your responsibility to be aware of and to meet your tax filing/reporting deadlines. This calendar summarizes important tax reporting and filing data for individuals, businesses and other taxpayers for the month of August 2011.

August 1

Employers. Employers file Form 941 for the second quarter of 2011.

Employers. Certain small employers deposit any undeposited tax if your tax liability is $2,500 or more for 2011 but less than $2,500 for the second quarter.

If and only to the extent that this publication contains contributions from tax professionals who are subject to the rules of professional conduct set forth in Circular 230, as promulgated by the United States Department of the Treasury, the publisher, on behalf of those contributors, hereby states that any U.S. federal tax advice that is contained in such contributions was not intended or written to be used by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer by the Internal Revenue Service, and it cannot be used by any taxpayer for such purpose.